C4ST’s Position on Safety Code 6

Position of Citizens 4 Safe Technology on the Conflicts of Interest of the Royal Society of Canada’s “Independent”  Panel of experts reviewing Canada’s Safety Code 6

On behalf of our members the national organization Citizens 4 Safe Technology has initiated an inquiry into several conflicts of interest on the Royal Society of Canada’s “Expert Panel” currently reviewing Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 on behalf of Health Canada.
This safety code is Canada’s only guideline outlining dangerous exposure limits from the increasing number of wireless communication devices in our lives. Currently Canadian standards are out of date and out of step with recent science and warnings from international regulatory bodies and medical associations.
 The current  “danger threshold” requires human skin to heat. Thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers dating back decades give evidence that living biological systems are affected from wireless radiation at levels well below the “heat threshold”, making Safety Code 6 out of date in the modern wireless world. It needs review, but this review panel is conflicted with the interests of the wireless industry, not the interests of the health of Canadians.
Today we are surrounded and inundated with wireless radiation from communication devices. The economic benefits and freedoms presented by the proliferation of this technology are almost immeasurable. The devices continue to amaze and build relevant social and economic layers in the foundation of our evolving society. However, this proliferation comes with a cost to human health that is real and is being measured in doctor’s offices across the nation. We are arriving at the boundaries of the human limit to wireless exposure and Canadians require stricter regulation and protection.
The people falling ill from wireless-overload are real and falling in greater numbers with every new cell tower, wifi system, and the proliferation of cellular communication devices in every corner of our society. This human health issue must be addressed if we are to fully benefit from the brilliance of this modern technology.  Without it, the cost of this technology in health care will soon outweigh its economic benefit. There is emerging evidence that it already has.
The Royal Society, Canada’s august body of academics has been assigned by Health Canada to review the Safety Code and update it according to the latest science on the matter of radiation exposure. The Royal Society has published clearly defined conflict of interest guidelines which have not been properly adhered to in the process of selecting this committee.  
This review panel of the Royal Society has an opportunity to bring our public protection into line with the modern reality of wireless technology, but the selection of a deeply conflicted panel is unlikely to make decisions to protect Canadians. It is likely to make decisions to protect the wireless industry that pays them.
The appointed Committee is made up of scientists with financial connections to the lucrative wireless industry, and scientists with predetermined viewpoints that evidence showing harm below the published safety threshold is somehow not to be believed. Some of them are conflicted on both points. Meaning they have lectured and spoken publicly stating that wireless radiation causes no DNA damage when evidence shows it does, and they are also receiving monetary benefit from wireless companies, electrical utilities, or wireless lobby groups.  They are often quoted making controversial and questionable statements that wireless radiation at levels much lower than the current Safety Code limits actually pose no harm to humans, when an increasing number of authorities say it does.  Even the manufacturers of our wireless devices admit to it in their own manuals.
These two conflicts of interest:  financial and ideological, are evidenced in public statements and media reports on the selected panel members.
This panel’s power over the public health of our nation at this moment is far too important to relax the Standards of Conflict of Interest normally imposed by the Royal Society’s selection committee for expert panelists.  C4ST has officially asked the Royal Society why it has not followed its own rules of conflict of interest, and why it has loaded the panel with scientists paid by the wireless industry.
On behalf of our expert Board of Directors we have asked that the Royal Society review panel b e dissolved and a new one be assembled, made up of truly independent reviewers.
At a time when Children are complaining in school Boards across Canada of debilitating effects of exposure from school-wide wifi systems  measured at levels below Safety Code Six Standards, and people are moving out of apartments due to cell phone towers on the roof making them sick, and teacher unions are drafting resolutions demanding  protection from classroom wireless devices,  and doctors are on record diagnosing wireless radiation exposure, all are being told that Safety Code 6 protects them, when in fact many scientists say it does not, and they are in imminent danger of negative health effects.
Indeed, even the wireless device manufacturers place liability limiting warnings in cell phones and wifi transmitters warning consumers not to touch the devices when they are turned on, but according to selected members of this Expert Panel, people should ignore those warnings. This is a profound misstep by the Royal Society at a time when Canadians have run out of places to turn for guidance.
Despite the outcries and warnings from the World Health Organization, medical associations, and labour groups, not one person selected for this panel has shown a measureable interest in protecting public health.   This is not a single minor conflict that can be overlooked but rather conflicts running through the heart of this panel that suggest it was selected because of its conflicts, not despite them.
Due to scientifically published links to neurological and cognitive effects of wireless radiation at levels far below current Safety Code 6 Standards there is a strong argument to take higher precaution and develop much stricter levels in places where children spend time, such as schools, daycares and libraries.    Yet members of this panel have in spite of the evidence publicly and repeatedly stated that there is no danger, prejudicing their opinions on this review.
At a time when Safety Code 6 is the only instrument by which authorities and regulators continue to expose Canadians to harmful levels and durations of wireless radiation, even  after they protest it and report symptoms, and who’s doctors have supported their desire not to be exposed, this review panel requires representation from independent scientists without conflict.  It has failed miserably on this point.
Where perhaps one panelist who represents the interests of the wireless industry may be explainable or excusable, the majority of this panel including its chair are directly conflicted financially or ideologically according to public records of their recent careers.
While they are all esteemed scientists , published and academically qualified, they are also engaged in financial relationships with companies, industry associations, and lobby groups which are directly affected by the outcome of this panel review. There the panel chair and several members represent deeply conflicted and inappropriate selections.
At such a time when medical doctors are diagnosing people in increasing numbers with debilitating symptoms from wireless radiation levels well below the current safety code six limits, and medical associations are calling for precaution and protection,  and the World Health Organization has declared all wireless radiation as possibly carcinogenic  this Safety Code must be revised. But many of the reviewers have already stated publicly that it does not need revision.

This selection of a committee to review Health Canada’s  Safety Code should include the scientists whose published studies show the weakening of the blood brain barrier, not those who refute it.  It should include the scientists who have shown the effects of wireless internet connections on heart rate variability, not the ones who haven’t read it. It should include the scientists who are conducting their research independently through universities, not the ones receiving funding from the lobby group trying protect the interests of wireless companies.
This panel is about science and public health. It is the single most important panel in the current landscape of Canadian public health.  However it is highly unlikely that it will protect Canadians, since it’s selection committee relaxed or ignored their own rules of conflict of interest when choosing them.
The Royal Society of Canada should answer as to why it has ignored such blatant conflicts of interest, why it has omitted independent scientists doing leading edge work on this topic, and why it has included scientists with ideological and financial conflicts.